The WoodenBoat Forum is sponsored by WoodenBoat Publications, publisher of WoodenBoat magazine. The Forum is a free service, and much like the "free" content on Public Radio, we hope you will support WoodenBoat by subscribing to this fabulous magazine. To get WoodenBoat delivered to your door or computer, mobile device of choice, etc, click WB Subscriptions.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ. You'll find answers to the frequently asked questions as well as basic rules. No need to register unless you would like to participate, although some images will only show if you are registered/logged-in.

You will need to register
before you can post: click the red register link or the register tab, above, right.

Selling/self promotion postings are verboten on the Forum. To advertise, take a look at WoodenBoat Advertising, or use your Google Adwords account if you want to advertise on the Forum.

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate

You forgot "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

No. Those are historical examples of bigotry against a particular group of people. Every one of them at one point in history was a big problem. How is religiously-inspired bigotry against gay folks who want to get married any different? If your religion tells you that some class of people should be treated badly, you goddamned well need to find a new one.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
for nature cannot be fooled."

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Keith Wilson

No. Those are historical examples of bigotry against a particular group of people. Every one of them at one point in history was a big problem. How is religiously-inspired bigotry against gay folks who want to get married any different? If your religion tells you that some class of people should be treated badly, you goddamned well need to find a new one.

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate

Oh dear, a bit anti-Islam isn't it?

Damn right! (Some kinds, anyway.) I have even less patience with the nastier varieties of Islam than with fundamentalist Christianity. It's a common right-wing meme that the left tends to be pro-Islam and anti-Christianity; total bullsh!t.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
for nature cannot be fooled."

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Keith Wilson

Damn right! (Some kinds, anyway.) I have even less patience with the nastier varieties of Islam than with fundamentalist Christianity. It's a common right-wing meme that the left tends to be pro-Islam and anti-Christianity; total bullsh!t.

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

He is not free--the Constitution does not grant him the right--to impose his Christian beliefs and behaviors on society.

Look at it this way:

Suppose I take Old Testament-ness as my religion, and make it my religious practice to obey every bloodthirsty hateful command I find that God has given me. For a few examples, see these excerpts from the Dear Doctor Laura letter you can find online:

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

If you are not prepared to give me the same freedom to practice my religion that you want to give to the baker, then your entire argument is nonsense.

Which it is.

Tom

You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

He is not free--the Constitution does not grant him the right--to impose his Christian beliefs and behaviors on society.

But he's not imposing. He's refusing to be imposed upon.

Nazism is a religion to some. Does the government have the right to compel you to make a swastika wedding cake? Suppose he says, I'll make the cake. I refuse to do the swastika. How are you infringing his right to practice nazism? You're not. Refuse and dare him to sue. He'll lose.

The difference is that gender is a protected class, nazism isn't. Once a class is protected, discrimination is verboten. But the question now is, how far may that prohibition reach?

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Osborne Russell

But he's not imposing. He's refusing to be imposed upon.

Nazism is a religion to some. Does the government have the right to compel you to make a swastika wedding cake? Suppose he says, I'll make the cake. I refuse to do the swastika. How are you infringing his right to practice nazism? You're not. Refuse and dare him to sue. He'll lose.

The difference is that gender is a protected class, nazism isn't. Once a class is protected, discrimination is verboten. But the question now is, how far may that prohibition reach?

First, your Nazi example completely lost me. Pronoun confusion. Who is making this cake, him or me?

Second, I notice you completely failed to respond to the relevant part of my post. If you have a counter-argument, let's hear it.

Look at it this way:

Suppose I take Old Testament-ness as my religion, and make it my religious practice to obey every bloodthirsty hateful command I find that God has given me. For a few examples, see these excerpts from the Dear Doctor Laura letter you can find online:

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

If you are not prepared to give me the same freedom to practice my religion that you want to give to the baker, then your entire argument is nonsense.

Which it is.

Tom

You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

Tom, you're right, that was badly written. I should have said "Suppose you say, I'll make the cake."

As to your point, I take it to be that an unlimited religious exemption would undo the law. I agree. I'm just speculating about whether there should be a limited exception, and what it might consist of.

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

Yes, we need to ask. The minimal case is only one end of the spectrum. The maximum end also needs to be determined.

Discrimination is not on a spectrum.

What is Discrimination?

In plain English, to "discriminate" means to distinguish, single out, or make a distinction. In everyday life, when faced with more than one option, we discriminate in arriving at almost every decision we make. But in the context of civil rights law, unlawful discrimination refers to unfair or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain characteristics.

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Osborne Russell

Tom, you're right, that was badly written. I should have said "Suppose you say, I'll make the cake."

As to your point, I take it to be that an unlimited religious exemption would undo the law. I agree. I'm just speculating about whether there should be a limited exception, and what it might consist of.

You are looking at it from the wrong end. The law is not interested in why the discrimination as that would open a chink in which folk could insert a crow bar to crack it wide open.
The law is right to limit itself to the act, not the motivation. Motivation can be used to help determine the likelihood of guilt, but is not a part of any definition of a crime.

It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.
The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Osborne Russell

As to your point, I take it to be that an unlimited religious exemption would undo the law. I agree. I'm just speculating about whether there should be a limited exception, and what it might consist of.

Fair enough. But why make limited exceptions for discrimination (a criminal act) but not child marriage (another religiously motivated criminal act) or murder (an obvious criminal act)? Maybe my religion tells me to kill infidels. Can we make limited exceptions for that, as long as I only kill infidels? Or can we make limited exceptions for those (like me) who would prefer not to pay taxes when military spending conflicts with my conscience?

I agree with Nick that the key is that the law must limit the action without consideration of the motive.

Tom

You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by WI-Tom

Fair enough. But why make limited exceptions for discrimination (a criminal act) but not child marriage (another religiously motivated criminal act) or murder (an obvious criminal act)? Maybe my religion tells me to kill infidels. Can we make limited exceptions for that, as long as I only kill infidels? Or can we make limited exceptions for those (like me) who would prefer not to pay taxes when military spending conflicts with my conscience?

I agree with Nick that the key is that the law must limit the action without consideration of the motive.

The exception I have in mind would have to do with creative, expressive acts. You seen those guys standing on the corner twirling signs, "grand opening", "open house", etc? Suppose a guy wants to hire them to twirl signs that say "I love homosexuality"?

This type of objection is typically based on religion, but not necessarily. Like conscientious objection to military service. But then as you say, there is no "conscientious objection", religious or any other kind, to paying taxes for the military. You can refuse to kill but you can't refuse to pay somebody else to kill. Isn't there, in there somewhere, some protective boundary around the individual conscience?

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Osborne Russell

The exception I have in mind would have to do with creative, expressive acts.

I'm an electrician (let's say). I don't want to wire your house because you are gay. So I claim exemption to anti-discrimination laws on the basis that wiring is a creative act that expresses my skills and vision as an electrician.

See the problem?

There is no act that isn't expressive or creative.

Tom

You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

Re: The baker and the Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Osborne Russell

Isn't there, in there somewhere, some protective boundary around the individual conscience?

Only as determined by society at the time.
You jailed conscientious objectors calling them draft dodgers during Nam.
During WWI we made them serve as non combatant medical orderlies. During the Second War they were put into various important work in the UK
As with everything it depends on what you can persuade your law makers to legislate.

It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.
The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.